Mr. Bakanov explained that unique scientific schools operate in Russia: they are focused on the study of Venus, the Moon, and Mars. According to him, no one in the world has replicated the Russian [sic] technology of landing on Venus yet.
What a joke… This is 1970s & 80s Soviet technology that has not been replicated by anyone else, Russian Federation included. Great Russian chauvinism moment.
Also, nobody’s replicated it because after the soviets revealed Venus is a boiling acid hell there just wasn’t much will or interest to keep landing on it. Like, try selling a billion dollar mission to Venus that’ll melt into sludge 2 hours after landing vs one to Mars that’ll run for a decade minimum.
And rover landing tech has come crazy far since parachutes attached to cannonballs. We’ve put a helicopter on Mars. But I’m not even sure a sky crane system like we use on Mars would be viable on Venus. Higher gravity, higher pressure, more corrosive atmosphere, higher heat.
Why would you even want to use the sky crane system on Venus? It has a thick atmosphere. You use a more appropriate landing mechanism. And if your lander that’s gonna be destroyed in a couple hours costs a billion dollars then that’s just an issue with production. Produce several, relatively unsophisticated landers and reserve the billions of dollar missions to like an airship or something.
Can you fly in a carbon dioxide atmosphere? Why do we need to send rover landers? Why don’t we upgrade to quadcopter drones that can get around more? Perhaps with a base station?
It’s density that matters, and Venus has a very dense atmosphere. If you go high enough it becomes Earthlike in some ways. Landers can get certain data that is impossible to obtain from afar. Same reason we land on Mars. I have no idea how you’d begin to make a rover for Venus. It would break down in hours or you’d need to invent computers that can operate at several hundred degrees.
What a joke… This is 1970s & 80s Soviet technology that has not been replicated by anyone else, Russian Federation included. Great Russian chauvinism moment.
Also, nobody’s replicated it because after the soviets revealed Venus is a boiling acid hell there just wasn’t much will or interest to keep landing on it. Like, try selling a billion dollar mission to Venus that’ll melt into sludge 2 hours after landing vs one to Mars that’ll run for a decade minimum.
And rover landing tech has come crazy far since parachutes attached to cannonballs. We’ve put a helicopter on Mars. But I’m not even sure a sky crane system like we use on Mars would be viable on Venus. Higher gravity, higher pressure, more corrosive atmosphere, higher heat.
Why would you even want to use the sky crane system on Venus? It has a thick atmosphere. You use a more appropriate landing mechanism. And if your lander that’s gonna be destroyed in a couple hours costs a billion dollars then that’s just an issue with production. Produce several, relatively unsophisticated landers and reserve the billions of dollar missions to like an airship or something.
An airship mission to Venus’ upper atmosphere would be pretty cool
Can you fly in a carbon dioxide atmosphere? Why do we need to send rover landers? Why don’t we upgrade to quadcopter drones that can get around more? Perhaps with a base station?
It’s density that matters, and Venus has a very dense atmosphere. If you go high enough it becomes Earthlike in some ways. Landers can get certain data that is impossible to obtain from afar. Same reason we land on Mars. I have no idea how you’d begin to make a rover for Venus. It would break down in hours or you’d need to invent computers that can operate at several hundred degrees.
High density is good for flight no? The thicker the density the easier it gets to use propellers?
Yes exactly which is why flight on Mars is kind of tricky and flight on Venus (ignore the acid) or Titan is a lot easier